Spurned by Industry, V-Chip Retains Some Mighty Friends

The anti-regulatory, pro-industry tide that swept into Washington with the new Republican Congress last year has recently been overtaken by a powerful anti-smut, anti-violence, pro-family tide, at least if legislation over a microchip to block out certain television programs is any indication.

The so-called V-chip -- the 'V' stands for violence -- has been loudly denounced by television industry lobbyists and some conservatives, like Bob Dole, as a form of censorship. But last week legislation requiring V-chip devices on new television sets passed in the Senate, and a similar bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

President Clinton weighed in as well last week, saying he thought the V-chip would be helpful to busy parents who cannot monitor every minute that their children spend channel-surfing.

Broadcast and cable networks already label some programs they think viewers might find objectionable ("N.Y.P.D. Blue" on ABC is one). Some cable services, like HBO and Showtime, put detailed advisories on the screen at the start of such programs, alerting viewers to violence, sexually explicit scenes and foul language. And by law all cable systems must provide customers with devices that give them the ability to block particular cable channels.

In a way, the V-chip can be seen as a logical extension of these existing means to help parents screen out violent programs. On the other hand, since some warning systems already exist, the V-chip debate can be seen as an excuse for political grandstanding.

Opponents cry "censorship," fearing the Federal Government will take over the rating of programs. Some of them say the use of V-chips will tar too many programs with one brush, not allowing for nuance, context or the wide variance in viewers' opinions about what is objectionable. Others simply say it will not work, that children will figure out how override the chip or that parents will neglect to use it.

The broadcast networks have a bottom-line problem with the chip, since their income comes from advertising (unlike cable networks, which get subscriber fees). If a large number of viewers were to block out a program with a 'V' rating, ratings for the program could drop below the level guaranteed to advertisers and networks might have to give rebates.

To advocates of the V-chip concept, part of its appeal is that it might put pressure on advertisers -- and therefore on producers of programs -- to reduce violence.

"The middle-class and upper-middle-class people who will purchase those TV sets when they come on the market are the primary target audience of every major advertiser in the U.S.," said Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who two years ago proposed the first V-chip legislation and who co-sponsored the House bill introduced Thursday. "If advertisers detect that significant numbers of their target audience are walling out violent programming, then they will respond to the market. That's not censorship -- that's a marketplace at work. They can still produce the stuff if they want to; they will just have to live with lower ratings."

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

And Newton N. Minow, a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission who has been a forceful lobbyist for protecting children from inappropriate television programming, said, "I think advertisers would be delighted to have a ratings system so they know where their money goes, and can stay away from programs they don't want to be associated with."

To some extent, advertisers have that ability now. "Advertisers can pre-screen programs or even individual movies and pull out if they're uncomfortable," said Paul Schulman, president of Paul Schulman Company, one of the largest buyers of network advertising. "And the networks police their own shows pretty well, in my opinion."

But deciding who would establish violence ratings for the whole range of television is a more difficult problem. The Senate and House bills nominate the television industry, but each bill also provides for a federally appointed panel to do so if the industry does not.

Movies are rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, but there are vastly more television programs produced each year than films. And would all violent acts require a 'V' rating -- even cartoon violence, or news footage?

"What is violent to one person isn't violent to another," said Kay Koplovitz, chairman and chief executive of USA Network, one of the largest cable networks. "We need to give adults some context for making decisions, and I think we do need to give viewers better information. But with a V-chip, anything labeled 'V' would be automatically excised."

Julie Hoover, a spokeswoman for Capital Cities/ABC Inc., said the company was not opposed to blocking devices, but was concerned about how far the term "objectionable programming" might be carried and who would define it. "Some people don't like women in low-cut dresses; some people don't like certain language that others find normal," she said.

In Canada, an experiment is under way using a wider range of ratings, from 1 to 9, in three categories: violence, sexuality and language. Parents can set the remote control at a low level while their children are around, then change the setting later.

Some argue that children old enough to be left alone in front of the television set will be quick to learn how to get around the V-chip. But Representative Markey envisions a code that is the same or similar to the one that parents use at their automated teller machines.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this article appears in print on July 17, 1995, on Page D00007 of the National edition with the headline: Spurned by Industry, V-Chip Retains Some Mighty Friends. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe